Home - List All Discussions

The Execution of Terri Schiavo

by: Allizdog2000

Terri Schiavo is going to be executed this Friday at 1pm (1300), 18 March 2005, via denial of a feeding tube/water, she will pass away in about one to two weeks. 
This is a Major Victory for the Pro-Death/Pro-Abortion/Poor-Choicers.  They will all rejoice in the passing of her life.  

Look at this link http://www.terrisfight.org/

reply from: kayani

Forgive me for taking slight offence at being called Pro-Death and a Poor-Choicer.  Though the link you give I believe is somewhat biased, I still believe that Terri should remain alive, given that she has not expressed any desire to die and is not in a vegetative state.  Though I am pro-choice, I will still be mourning Terri's death.  Yes, we do have hearts.

reply from: Allizdog2000

You are pro-choice, same as poor-choice.   I hope you do take offense.  it's not biased.  This woman has been on life support for 15 years, dependent on someone and Pro-Death abortionists scream about 9 months.   They'll march for calling Children's deaths (aka March for Women's Lives, same thing).  I would think they would march calling for her death.  Same thing, she is dependent on someone else, so is a child.    

  

reply from: kayani

Sorry, I see a distinct difference between caring for someone and having them inside me.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Sorry, I see a distinct difference between caring for someone and having them inside me.

That's because you are callous, heartless, and have no moral conscience.  That is why you see a distinct difference.    

Which is why it's so difficult to argue with you PEOPLE, you Pro-Death people.    How do you argue with people that have no morals, no conscience, bend and twist and lie about science and religion to make it suit them?   

"I see a distinct difference between caring for someone and having them inside me"
You refer to a fetus as a "them", impling person or personhood.  Which is it?  Is it "Them" or "it"?
 

reply from: KTMaiLove

Umm... I'm pro choice, but I'm not pro death as you say. I don't like the idea of an abortion, but who am I to force my beliefs onto another? If she wants an abortion it's her decision.

As for Terri Schiavo... well I don't know what to say really except that sucks.

reply from: ladyV

For the Pro-Choicer...Please consider the following logic...
It is so easy to fall for the TITLE Pro-Choice...it sounds so good on the surface...but challenge yourself... this is long but GOOD!... go deeper and be a wise choicer...Pro-Choice sounds good simply because a spark of the truth is in it...
The Truth that we are all created with a FREE WILL ...hence we say who am I to tell someone else what they can do or it is my choice...ALL Choices are not equal though, it depends what someone is choosing to do!  There is a DISTINCT DIFFERENCE between Free Will and Freedoms/Rights.
I may have the free will to choose to kill you but I do not have the right or the freedom to kill you...thankfully the law still protects your life...for now...we are on a slippery slope by allowing Terri's nutrition and hydration to be removed so unjustly!  So just because someone may have the free will (hence the choice) that does not mean they have the RIGHT to take anothers life, no matter where that life is or what stage of development it is in...The Only Question that needs to be answered in the whole abortion debate is WHAT IS THE UNBORN?  Well we already know the answer to that (although there are many fools stuck in the 70's that will ignorantly try to argue that it is not a life...tell them to use logic and catch up with science and technology)...From the moment of conception it is a living human being...I had a cousing born 2 years ago that was frozen in the embryonic stage of development...to see him today just blows me away...he was FROZEN for 7 years...a life waiting to be born! 
CHOICE is just a euphamism for killing...finish the sentence...choice to do what?...TO KILL... not only the innocent child but even mothers die from legal abortion...and the ones who do not die physically, die emotionally...Trust me, I am one of them...the road and journey to healing has been intense...We can only bury the truth for so long and think we are fine...we cannot kill our child though and not have it affect us!  Even when we believe we are fine...I suppressed it for over 10 years!
What if bank robbers and murderers got together and said the same thing...it's my choice, who are you to tell me what I can do...You would look at him/her and think this person is CRAZY!  You cannot just rob or kill someone...Well the same logic applies...I would not say hey I would never rob a bank or kill someone but who am I to tell someone else what to do...We better stand up for what is RIGHT, GOOD, TRUE & JUST while we still can...people do not realize the consequences of "PRO-CHOICE" thinking...very sad and very dangerous!!!  We are created for love, respect, honor...if someone is not ready to have a child, then don't make one...we are a very IRRESPONSIBLE SOCIETY, who have become very SELFISH!  There is no Happiness/Joy or true love in having sex outside marriage or inside marriage without being open to the GIFT of New Life...True Fulfullment is found following God's plan for love!!!  God Bless you!

reply from: yoda

So, as in real estate, it's "location, location, location"?

First of all, (except in rape cases, which are rare) who put the baby there? Did it invade the mother against her will?

Second, what choice does the baby have about it's "location" once it's there? Can it leave on it's own?

And last, what other human being is considered "disposable" because he/she has been placed in a particular location by people who don't love him/her?

reply from: yoda

If you're a citizen of the United States, you "force" your opinion onto others every day. The government you support arrests citizens for doing things it considers immoral, like murder and kidnapping every single day. So why make a distinction for mothers who kill their unborn children? Is it because the public can't see or hear the victim as he/she is being killed? Is it because they are killed in private, by a medical person? Does that make the killing moral? Why do you wish to protect such killing?

reply from: yoda

Well said, ladyV. Euphemisms are their stock and trade, because even they find the words "killing" and "abortion" distasteful.

reply from: Christian4life

I don't know about all of you but I am getting really sick and tired of the media's rediculous biased reporting on this case.  It really bugs me because the general public is so ignorant and uninformed they believe whatever the newscasters tell them without ever looking up the facts for themselves - not everyone but a LOT of people.

Well I saw the news last night and they started talking about Terri Schiavo and they said, and I quote, "Terri's heart stopped beating 12 years ago.  Her husband says she wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive by machine."

GOOD GRIEF!!!  They made it sound like she has an artificial heart or something when what they are actually going to do is starve her to death!  She is NOT being kept alive by machine!  She simply needs a feeding tube a few times a day at mealtimes.  That is all!  And she could have been rehabilitated if that husband of hers had actually let her get the rehabilitation she needed instead of denying it for the past 10 years!  But I guess he would just prefer her dead and I still can't figure out why.

reply from: Tam

A friend pointed out to me yesterday that Michael was the one who had the feeding tube put in in the first place, and that there was some question about whether she would have been able to eat normally then, and further that there is still some question as to whether she might be able to eat normally now, but he won't allow anyone to try to feed her by mouth! I also heard there were bone scans with broken bones that were never explained, and that Michael Schiavo wants Terri's body cremated after death without an autopsy. Is it possible? What kind of country is this? As for him hating her, I read somewhere that her family and friends now basically think he tried to strangle her and wants her never to recover enough to prove it. That would explain a lot. What's a million dollars compared to your freedom? If that's true, he'd stop at nothing to end her life. And it seems like he has. Like it was a setup from the start, that feeding tube. It may or may not be that sinister but I would think that with even the chance that it was, they'd hold off and investigate like crazy. But instead, the whole situation *is* crazy.

reply from: kayani

"Them" implies life, not personhood.  I refer to my cats as "them" all the time.  Farm and wild animals can also easily be called "them," yet are apparently that does not protect them from being murdered and eaten.

reply from: Tam

"Them" implies life, not personhood.  I refer to my cats as "them" all the time.  Farm and wild animals can also easily be called "them," yet are apparently that does not protect them from being murdered and eaten.

Do you really consider it murder when an animal is killed? I mean, it sounds like that's what you think, but I thought I was the only one here! Anyway, if you do feel that way, what is it about an unborn baby that makes you feel otherwise? Furthermore, at what point would you consider killing the unborn child an act of murder? Or would you not consider it murder until after birth?

reply from: kayani

"Them" implies life, not personhood.  I refer to my cats as "them" all the time.  Farm and wild animals can also easily be called "them," yet are apparently that does not protect them from being murdered and eaten. Do you really consider it murder when an animal is killed? I mean, it sounds like that's what you think, but I thought I was the only one here! Anyway, if you do feel that way, what is it about an unborn baby that makes you feel otherwise? Furthermore, at what point would you consider killing the unborn child an act of murder? Or would you not consider it murder until after birth?

Yes, I am very defensive of animal rights.  I recognize that abortion is the horrible taking of an innocent life, and work towards a world where there would be no abortions.  I advocate other meathods of birth control, and responsible sex education.  I do not believe a society free of abortion can be achieved by merely outlawing it.  The only society that can ever be free of abortion is one that is first freed of unwanted pregnancies.  If it is capable of feeling pain, I do not see why one would inflict pain on it (a fetus, or an animal).  I believe eating meat is wrong, but I do not attempt to make that illegal.  It is the same way I feel about abortion.  I would love to end it, end the very desire people have to get abortions, and I do that not by denying them an abortion if that is what they desire, just by working to make that desire obsolete through advocating birth control and thus eliminating, as much as possible, unwanted pregnancies.

reply from: Tam

Kayani, if you recognize that abortion is the "horrible taking of an innocent life" then you definitely have that common ground with most people on this forum. Of course outlawing abortion on demand would not solve the problem entirely. But do you feel murder should be legal? After all, making murder illegal has not stopped people from murdering. If you will say that you feel murder should be legal, that you just feel like the law has no place in matters of life and death, then I will respect your position. But if you feel murder should remain illegal, then your position seems inconsistent to me. Why should the horrible taking of an innocent life be completely without legal penalty? And if the dividing line is viability, you really do need to answer the siamese twin question. You know what I mean.

reply from: kayani

I hope this makes sense, but in my eyes, murder already is legal.  If a person comes to the conclusion that he is going to take another's life, then he does it generally.  There really is no way to adequately punish such an act, so really, in my opinion, no useful law exists that would dissuade a murderer, thus murder is already legal.  But people know it is wrong.  We educate them and tell them it is wrong, but we cannot stop them from doing it with a law.  I don't believe a law would be an effective barrior for those willing to kill innocent unborn children or animals either.

reply from: shiprah

I'm against rape.  But who am I to force those believes on another.  Plus, if you think Terri's situation sucks -- go to her website, email a senator and sign a position.  Do something other than pout.

reply from: Tam

I hope this makes sense, but in my eyes, murder already is legal.  If a person comes to the conclusion that he is going to take another's life, then he does it generally.  There really is no way to adequately punish such an act, so really, in my opinion, no useful law exists that would dissuade a murderer, thus murder is already legal.  But people know it is wrong.  We educate them and tell them it is wrong, but we cannot stop them from doing it with a law.  I don't believe a law would be an effective barrior for those willing to kill innocent unborn children or animals either.

Are you seriously trying to say that if murder were actually legal, if you could go to murder clinics and murder people with no legal repercussions whatsoever, that the murder rate would be the same as it is now? If not then you must admit that laws against murder save innocent lives. And that's what a law against abortion does, too. Is saving innocent lives a value to you? It must be if you feel abortion is a horrible taking of an innocent life. If it's horrible and a law would reduce it significantly if not eliminate it, why not support that law? Murder is not legal. If you are caught murdering someone, you can lose your freedom or even your life. Are you seriously trying to say that is not a deterrent at all? Because otherwise you are not consistent. Are you also seriously thinking that if abortion were legal, all these women who stroll into Planned Parenthood and waltz out a couple hours later baby-free would go through the ordeal of trying to physically destroy their unborn children with coat hangers and back alley butchers? You think that once someone sets her mind on killing her unborn child, she'll stop at nothing to accomplish this? All evidence points to the contrary. Women change their minds all the time about abortion. I personally see it happen during the sidewalk counseling I do. I have seen women change their minds about taking the lives of their unborn babies. And those are the only women I have ever seen walk out of PP with a genuine smile on their faces. Have you never heard anyone say, "Boy, if murder were legal..." I mean, come on. You can't try to weasel out of this question by saying you think murder is already legal. Murder is illegal in this country, last I checked. It carries serious, serious penalties if you are proven a murderer. Abortion is legal and carries no penalty (legally) whatsoever. That is a huge difference. Do you really deny that?

reply from: Della22

Tam, sorry this is a little off the path of the discussion, but I just noticed your signature (yeah I don't catch things very quickly now. I think it has something to do with my pregnancy.) What do you mean by you were converted by science? I am just curious what it was that changed your mind. If it works on one person it could work on another. It must have been a very valid significant pooint that some of us never thought to put together (though I am sure we know it's right.)

reply from: Tam

Hey Della! Ok I only have one minute right now but I will sum it up. It is science and technology that have opened everyone's eyes in the past 30 years--everyone who has the guts to look at the situation objectively. We can see into the womb in a way we couldn't at the time Roe v. Wade was decided. We can see the development of the human being from conception to birth. And we can see that there is no magic moment at which that little being changes fundamentally between conception and birth. We can see that it's a baby. A tiny baby--and that is exactly what it looks and acts like, all documented thoroughly. I heard there is even some new documentary about life in the womb. And someone posted a site www.birthpsychology.com or something, where they talk about the life of the unborn child. There is so much scientific evidence to prove that this is a baby, that to deny it is to deny logic and reason--not very scientific to do that. We can see what happens during an abortion, because technology enables that. We can see plain as day that it's the murder of a baby. That the human life begins at conception and develops very rapidly into what is clearly the shape of a human baby, that even as that shape is being formed, no fundamental changes to that being are taking place other than the natural growth and development. Pro-aborts don't like to look at the baby in the womb because it makes it so obvious. They definitely don't want to look at an abortion taking place, because that makes it so clear. It is the murder of a baby. The brutal, horrific murder of a defenseless, naked, tiny little child. It makes me sick that this ever happens. And there is no excuse for it. Even if that child's parents are a rapist and his victim. That child should not be murdered.

Good news for Terri, by the way!! http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43370http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43370

reply from: yoda

Nor do I. I also don't believe that the numbers of abortion can be reduced by protecting it's legal status, just the opposite in fact. Look at other violent acts that are illegal and tell me if you think they would be more or less common if they were made legal, okay?

So you think that protecting the legal status of abortion is the moral equivilent of protecting the consumption of animal flesh? Why would you protect either activity if you think they are immoral?

reply from: YGOR

Hello all.

Another issue that I don't believe has been considered by many people is the totalitarian authority this "guardian", Michael Schiavo, has over his ward's life.

If you read the article (link below), you will (about halfway down or so) see a partial list of this man's excesses, or should I say outrages, in regards to his ward, Terri.

We, as a society, need to rethink how much power guardians ought to have.  It just seems that the more power they have, the more potential for serious abuses of that power there will be.

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43370http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43370

Let's keep the prayers going for Terri and her family and her legal defense team.

YGOR (from the high desert)

reply from: Tam

Friday - Terri's nutrition and hydration have now been withheld from her. It is unclear if the port that accommodates her feeding tube has been surgically removed as her family was ordered to leave her room.

http://terrisfight.org/

I am sickened to read some of the articles about this. They spout the same lies that Michael Schiavo always says: she's in PVS (she is not!), she would want to die (says Michael! not Terri!), her collapse was caused by a chemical imbalance (her parents think he tried to strangle her!), it's all about money (maybe for Michael!).

reply from: Navynate

I'm with you Tam. I think that Mark Schivo is a total and complete scumbag for what he's done to Terri. And to think that she might have been possibly choked into her present condition by him is grounds to have the whole thing investigated by the police and DA. He and those people who support his position really show how much they care about life and the lives of those who are brain damaged. This whole thing is an outrage, how can anyone support her being killed? Most of the people who support Terri being killed are also prochoice as well, so we know how important life is to them, not very important at all.    

reply from: antiaphrodite

i can't imagine being starved to death...

reply from: Navynate

I can't imagine starving to death either, but it's a horrible death from what I've read. 

Guess who is working with Mark Schivos lawyers? The ACLU, that's who. I wonder what it's like to wrong as often as the ACLU is on every issue they come out for or against? I think that they have about a 97 or 98% of being wrong on the issues they take a side on. They will be on the side of people and groups who are wrong and or totally discusting in the positions they take. If you don't know what side is the right side to be on, just wait until the ACLU comes out on one side or the other and then the side that they aren't on will be the right side to be on. How can we not be surprised about this. The culture of death that we have (thanks to abortion on demand at any time, free for anyone who wants one, free contraceptives too for anyone as well groups) since Roe v. Wade was decided. Then killing a lady who isn't on any life support system who is brain damaged and not in a vegatative state (unlike the state people who want her killed are saying that she is in) and unresponsive. Thank you to all you prochoice people for taking away the sanctity of life for all life, not just the lives of unborn babies. Thanks to people like you and groups you support, no life is sacred anymore since Roe Vs. Wade. Who's next? What group is going to be the next group to be targetted for death by groups like yours? When are you going to come after people who are mentally retarded and say that they have no right to live their lives? They're dependent on others to survive, so when are you going to decide that they have no right to live since they would die without someone taking care of them? What about the very old and sick, are they the next group to be targetted for extinction by "Prochoice groups"? I'm sure it wasn't your intent to take away the sanctity of the lives of others when you fought for abortion rights, but that's exactly what you did, OK? It's the culture you created that is causing people like Mike Schivo to have his wife starved to death because it's HIS CHOICE!!!!! When you take away the right of the unborn to be protected then you take away the right of all life to be protected from ever being targetted at some possible time in history. 

If you people would ever read your history and rememeber what happened before WW2 started and how Hitler rounded up people who were retarded first and then other groups after that. When one group was no longer safe, then all groups became potential targets as well. Some group could take over and decide that a group that you're a part of no longer has legal protection, and you're one of those who is rounded up and shipped off to camps to work or be killed at some point in time. What if you are of an ethnic group and another group decided that your group has no right to live anymore, what would you do if that ever happened? Well, the group that has been targetted (by prochoice groups and their supporters) are unborn babies whose mother wants an abortion. And there is a word to describe a group that is targetted for extinction and that is Genocide. And yes, abortion fits the definition of Genocide perfectly!!!!               

reply from: mom5

And I couldn't imagine being the responsible "party" (Michael and Judge Greer) for letting a person starve to death....

reply from: Tam

Here is what Kate Adamson said it was like for her:

When the feeding tube was turned off for eight days, I thought I was going insane. I was screaming out in my mind, "Don't you know I need to eat?" And even up until that point, I had been having a bagful of Ensure as my nourishment that was going through the feeding tube. At that point, it sounded pretty good. I just wanted something. The fact that I had nothing, the hunger pains overrode every thought I had.

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2005/03/kate_adamson_sp.php

reply from: Dmourning

This is amazing.

You people get your panties in a knot over the "sanctity of marriage" and saving it from those evil same-sex unions - yet, when the husband tries to excersize one of the benefits of said holy marriage (that is, making important medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse), you cheer it being blocked. Last time I checked, in getting married, didn't her parents "give her away"? Terri's parents, their lawyers, congress and all of you are not keeping Terri alive for Terri, you are trying to keep her alive for yourselves (quite selfishly, I might add) and for political posturing. I only hope she dies with dignity because she most certainly isn't living with it. 

As decisionmaker for my grandfather at the time of his death, I made the decision to have him unhooked from machines. Why? He was sick and, in the opinion of multiple doctors, incapable of recovering from his condition. Thankfully, the government didn't decide to intervene in that. I hope every single one of you is faced with that decision for yourselves at some point so you can see how assinine you sound clamoring on and on about "save Terri" and whatever else. Save Terri for what? So she can continue to live artifically?  

If "god" had its way, she would have been dead 15 years ago when her heart stopped after she abused herself with her bulemia.

reply from: Tam

This post is so full of lies and spin that it is sickening. Dmourning, you have no idea what you're talking about. And as for wishing that on each of us, well, all I have to say is, you know what we wish for you, Dmourning? We wish you'd get a clue. About Terri, about the unborn, and about manners. You clearly don't know much about this case, so why don't you go do some research rather than make statements that, in light of the actual situation, are unspeakably rude?

reply from: Dmourning

So the story about my dying grandfather: Lies and spin? How so? Would you mind retelling the story as it actually happened then?

Please address the point about taking rights away from the husband and state by federal entities? You call me out for not offering proof or backing, now it's your turn.

reply from: Tam

[sarcasm] Yeah, Dmourning, that's what I meant. I meant that you were lying about your grandfather. Boy, you really put me in my place. [/sarcasm] I have a "dying grandfather" story, too. Mine had a feeding tube because he couldn't swallow. I wonder if Terri can swallow. I guess we'll never know, since her husband won't allow anyone to try to find out or try to teach her how if it turned out she couldn't.

As for the rights of a spouse, let's remember that Terri left no written instructions about any of this. All there is is the word of her husband, who also coincidentally happens to be the one with her when she collapsed. He claimed she had an eating disorder that caused a chemical imbalance that made her just collapse. Or perhaps the Schindlers are right and he tried to strangle her, and that's what led to this mysterious collapse. So the first issue is whether or not Terri would want to live or die if her living depended on artificial life support. And the second issue is whether or not being fed by a stomach tube constitutes artificial life support. And the third issue is whether Terri requires the feeding tube. The fourth issue is whether or not she is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).

So let's deal with those questions.

1) Whether Terri would want to live or die if living depended on artificial life support. Well, we have no way of knowing. We have her spouse's word, which is that she would want to die, and we have her parents' word, which is that she'd want to live. No one has any proof either way. That being the case we obviously cannot err on the side of death.

2) Whether a feeding tube constitutes "artificial life support." If nothing else were wrong with her, but she required a stomach tube to eat, would that be a life not worth living? Because that is the only reason for ending her life that her husband has given. She wouldn't want to live, he says, if her survival depended on artificial life support. How "artificial" is a feeding tube? Is it "artificial" enough to deny someone the ability to eat, in the absence of any written directive about it?

3) Does Terri even require the tube? It is unknown. There was evidence that she might have been able to swallow normally, but her husband had the feeding tube installed. He would not allow any tests to determine whether she can swallow or any therapy to help her if she couldn't. It may very well be the case that she could eat normally right now if not for being prevented from doing so.

4) Is Terri in PVS? There is some debate about this. Her husband claims she is. Her family claims she is not. There is evidence that she is not. Apparently, there has never even been an MRI. With this kind of doubt, again, we must err on the side of caution. I have seen video of Terri. I do not think she is in PVS. I have not personally examined her and I'm not a doctor so my opinion is irrelevant to the case. But I think there is evidence that she is not in PVS and that further investigation is needed at a minimum.

With those things in mind, her food being denied her is wrong.

reply from: Dmourning

Boy you're just incapable of carrying on a discussion without resorting to attacks, are you? I'm the enabler, though, that allows you to do it by continually replying so I guess it's partially my fault.

So you think Terri's condition was brought on by an assault??? Why weren't charges brought against Michael Shiavo in that case, then?

As for your points:

1: With marriage, your spouse is, by defualt, given the responsibility of making important decisions about your medical treatment should you become incapacitated and unable to make them on your own. By law, whatever her parents say her wishes were are pretty much irrelevant. In this case, "erring on the side of life" is just a euphenism for not approving of her husband's choice and trying to circumvent his legal right to make that choice for Terri.

2. She needs a feeding tube because she is in a vegetative state unable to feel hunger, chew, swallow or anything else voluntary for that matter. She is being kept alive artifically because, if nature had its way, she would have died long ago without the help.

3. She can't feel hunger, chew or swallow, much less lift the food from her plate to her mouth on her own. She most certainly needs it if being kept alive artifically is the goal.

4. And that video of Terri you saw is the video from 2001 that has been circulating of late. If there were any videos from 2005, I wonder if you could see any improvement? I doubt it, but then again, both sides could make their case by showing us Terri today. I wonder what they are hiding.

I would also, again, like to point out that people in irreversable states of critical health and sickness have their feeding tubes and respirators unhooked on a daily basis as part of decisionmaking by spouses and relatives without government involvement. Why should this case be any different?

reply from: Tam

I hope you are right about Terri not being able to feel hunger. I really hope you are right. But I'm pretty sure you're wrong. And if you're wrong, what you're supporting is torture.

Ok, what if you were married and you suffered an injury that made you unable to communicate or to eat by yourself--your spouse (or someone) would have to feed you with a spoon, like a baby? What if your spouse decided you wouldn't want to live that way and that you should just starve? Would that be ok with you? If your spouse wouldn't let your mom feed you with a spoon, even if that's all it would take to save your life? How would you feel about that?

reply from: Dmourning

Look into it, Tam, she can't feel hunger.

Before I answer, let me preface this by saying that Terri can not eat - there is no "feed you with a spoon, like a baby" with her. That's why she is being fed with a tube. Personally, if I ended up in the situation you just described, I would wish to be humanely euthanized. However since the extreme right has ensured I won't have that option, I would prefer to be unhooked and to die with dignity.

reply from: Tam

Look into it, Tam, she can't feel hunger.

Before I answer, let me preface this by saying that Terri can not eat - there is no "feed you with a spoon, like a baby" with her. That's why she is being fed with a tube. Personally, if I ended up in the situation you just described, I would wish to be humanely euthanized. However since the extreme right has ensured I won't have that option, I would prefer to be unhooked and to die with dignity.

The situation I just described had nothing to do with a feeding tube. Tube vs. spoon is just a technicality. The important point is being unable to feed yourself. And you are really saying that if you were unable to feed yourself and unable to communicate your desire to live, you feel you should be allowed to die of starvation and thirst? That's what you're saying?

Let's also remember that whether or not Terri can eat normally is contested. There is no proof that she cannot eat normally. You say she can't feel hunger? Look into what? What is it that you think would prove that she can't feel hunger?

reply from: Tam

An attorney for Terri Schiavo said the severely brain-injured woman cried and yelled out that she wants to live after being told today her life-sustaining feeding tube was about to be removed by court order.

Barbara Weller was in Terri Schiavo's room at the Woodside Hospice in Pinellas Park, Fla., when the encounter took place, according to activist Randall Terry, who spoke with WorldNetDaily from outside the building as demonstrators continued a vigil.

If true, the report apparently refutes the court's finding that Terri Schiavo is in a "persistant vegetative state" and cannot currently express her wishes. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she had indicated she would not want to live in such a condition, but parents Robert and Mary Schindler dispute that and suspect he is responsible for the 1990 incident in which oxygen to her brain was temporarily cut off, causing severe brain damage.

Weller essentially told Terri Schiavo, "You had better say you want to live or they will kill you. Just say you want to live."

Schiavo responded with a drawn out, "IIIIII," then screamed out "waaaaaaaa" so loudly that a police officer stationed outside the room came in.

The officer then ordered Weller removed from the room, according to Terry.

The event was witnessed by Terri Schiavo's sister Suzanne Vitadamo and Suzanne's husband Michael.

"I talked to Suzy and Michael, and they both said it was unbelievable," Terry said. "It was very articulate, for Terri, but they also say this is normal [for her to communicate]."

Terry explained the family says Schiavo often is talkative, though similar to a 10-month-old.

"The words usually are not discernable, but she's responsive to commands, uses slow diction and her voice lilts to show emotion and context," he said.

Weller teared up after hearing Schiavo respond today, Terry said, and indicated Schiavo was crying.

Terry has established a website, helpterri.com with information about how to get involved, including phone numbers of lawmakers and details of a rally and lobby-training sessions to be held next week in the Florida capital, Tallahassee, beginning Monday.

"We need people there Monday night, people who have never lobbied before, to come, and we're going to be begging the [Florida] Senate to get its act together," Terry said.

Doctors removed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube today to carry out her estranged husband's requested court order.

Barring an intervention, she is expected to live another week to 10 days.

The tube removal came after a Florida judge blocked an eleventh-hour end-run waged by members of House and Senate panels, ruling the device can be removed immediately.

Early this morning, the House Government Reform Committee decided to launch an investigation into the case and issued subpoenas that order doctors and the administrator at the hospice facility not to remove her feeding tube and keep her alive until the investigation is complete.

At the same time, the Senate Health Committee also requested Terri and Michael Schiavo appear at an official committee hearing March 28.

As a result, minutes before the 1 p.m. EST deadline for the tube removal passed Pinellas Circuit Court Judge David Demers ordered the feeding tube remain in place while presiding Judge George Greer addresses the matter of the congressional subpoenas in a court hearing.

But an hour later, Greer disregarded the subpoenas and again ordered the feeding tube pulled.

March 18, 2005 www.wnd.com

reply from: Dmourning

What I'm saying is look into what Terri's brain is like (fluid) and look into what someone who is living in a braindead state feels or doesn't feel. Hunger is not something they feel.

If I had to receive food from someone else but was able to chew and swallow on my own (as you described in your scenario) then I would not be braindead like Terri is. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges since she is braindead and I would not be. For me personally, however, either way I would not want to live like that. What difference does it make to anyone else but myself and my family how I would prefer not to live?

reply from: Tam

House, Senate reach compromise on Terri

Deal will 'restore nutrition and hydration to Miss Schiavo'

Posted: March 19, 2005

4:06 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Congress has hammered out a compromise today that will "restore nutrition and hydration to Miss Schiavo," in the words of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.

The deal calls for the U.S. Senate to convene briefly today for a vote on adjournment. The procedural move would then permit the House to reconvene after its declared recess earlier this week. An aide to Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada says the House could approve the Senate version of a measure that would put Schiavo's case into federal court.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., is expected to call the House into special session tomorrow for a vote for final approval of the measure.

"We are confident that this compromise addresses everyone's concerns," says Delay. "All sides agree that this is the best way to proceed."

The earlier bill passed by the House would have created a role for federal courts in all such end-of-life cases, whereas the Senate version provides narrower "private relief" to Terri Schiavo's parents.

President Bush is expected to sign the bill as soon as it is delivered to him.

reply from: Dmourning

And this is what you want? The federal government to have a role in private decisions regarding your end of life care? Unbelievable.

reply from: Tam

No. What I want is justice.

Imagine, for just a moment, that Michael Schiavo is the moral equivalent of Scott Peterson. That he tried to kill his wife and is now trying to get away with it. Imagine that due to corruption, power, and money, the case hasn't been investigated fully. It may very well be the case that this is exactly what has happened. I think this case deserves much more scrutiny at the very least.

reply from: Dmourning

Tam, seriously, this case is 15 years old. If there was an assualt involved, why weren't charges brought against Michael at some point? As far as "corruption, power, and money" being the reason this hasn't been investigated throroughly. Notice that Terri did not become a household name until 1998, the first time Michael petitioned to have her feeding tube removed. Before that point, this wasn't the spectacle it is today. I think this whole "conspiracy theory" that you are invoking is a last ditch attempt to try and justify something that is really lacking sufficient justification.

reply from: Allizdog2000

I love you Dmourning...

reply from: KTMaiLove

http://www.totallyre.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9748

Just to show what other people have said...

reply from: Allizdog2000

Whom cares what other trolls say in other forums...

By the way.... Your Signature "To me... the best thing about being pro choice is that you're on everyone's side. " 

You're not on my side.

reply from: antiaphrodite

the bill has been passed. hope all goes well from there.

reply from: KTMaiLove

A) they're not trolls. Trolls are people who start stuff to get a rise out of someone. (BTW you're a troll too so yeah.)

B) I'm not on your side? Thats a real shame.

reply from: Dmourning

Yeah, Mai, explain how you are on the pro-lifers side? I'm pro-choice and I most certainly don't consider myself to be on their side.

reply from: bkester

Who of you prolifers would like to live on the way Terri is living? Don't you think she has a right to a humane death? What sense does it make for her to continue living? And oh, if you, like your pitiful president, think it is so important to "save" this "life", why did you all start and support a criminal war that killed so many Iraqis and Americans, and many others (what about your cold blooded shooting of an Italian secret agent who was protecting a saved hostage just a few weeks ago, for example)? If you are so concerned with the right to live, what about the right to die? Do you claim that you can take that away from someone else? Hereby, I declare that I would like to be killed by medicines if I ever come into a position that Terri is in. If the doctors think I would never recover, I would do myself, my beloved ones, and society a great favour by not living anymore.

reply from: Tam

And while you're at it, explain how you're on the side of the unborn infants you think it's horrible to slaughter. I'm pro-life and I most certainly don't consider you to be on their side.

reply from: Tam

Well write it down. Because in the absence of written evidence as to Terri's wishes, all we have is two conflicting stories. Her husband's story (she would want to die) and her family's story (she would want to live). In the absence of any evidence either way, do you think it is right that she be killed?

reply from: bkester

My question is: Who of you would want to live the life of Terri, being kept alive completely unnaturally (and, while we are at it, against the will of God) until she dies a "natural" death. Without medical intervention, she would have died long time ago. What sense does it make, really? So, who would like to "live" on like this? And take the place of someone that might have been cured, but for whom there are no medical resources left?

reply from: Tam

Ok I will try to answer your questions, but I would like you please to answer mine (above).

As for your questions. First of all, you presume that her life is being extended in an "unnatural" fashion. I would like to debate that further. I have great familiarity with the feeding tube she uses to eat, and I contest that this alone constitutes an unnatural extension of anyone's life. I think if not for her brain damage, the feeding tube would not be an issue. And so I think perhaps this is a case of a woman being discriminated against because of her mental abilities. If she were demonstrably of normal intelligence and yet lacked the ability to communicate or to eat by mouth, I doubt anyone would have any legal right to deny her food. As for who would like to live as Terri lives, I think first of all that you are woefully undereducated about her life, and second of all, that if the alternative were death, yes, I would want to live, as Terri does. And especially if the alternative were slow death by starvation and dehydration. As for taking someone else's place: that argument could be made for anyone who requires any assistance whatsoever. What if someone else needs those resources more, and dies as a result of your needs? It is a silly question, I think. I think I'd like to hear your answer to my question now. I understand that you believe her husband is telling the truth, that Terri would want to die. But what if he is lying? Here is the question again:

Since there is no written evidence as to Terri's wishes, all we have is two conflicting stories. Her husband's story (she would want to die) and her family's story (she would want to live). In the absence of any evidence either way, do you think it is right that she be killed?

reply from: Allizdog2000

I look at the picture of Terri Schiavo, and yes, she is still very much alive.  This really should worry alot of people because  the slipperly slope of no return is turning into a free fall of no return.   As soon as we have to start caring for people, that need assistance, stop feeding them so they will die.  
    This is a direct result of Two generations of selfishness.   The last generation legalized abortion, this generation made it acceptable and legal to end those we have to care for, at the next-to-last stage of life.   "Can't feed yourself, looks like you are going to starve!"  This is going to have a ripple effect.
I wonder what is next.   

My Post will be brought out of the grave soon "Abortion and the Paranormal"
 

reply from: KTMaiLove

Hmm... hard to explain my view on things. I suppose you'd just have to understand the intricacies of my mind.

reply from: bkester

According to all doctors who appeared in court, there is no hope for any recovery whatsoever for her. She might just "live" on for another 50 years, or even longer. I am very convinced that I would never, ever want to be kept alive like that. And all the people I know in my vicinity have the same feeling. I agree that there are more humane ways to end her life than to starve her to death. Apparently it is not possible for Americans to seriously talk about it, especially in the last years in which you are becoming a theocracy and in which your president is playing God (unfortunately, even in this case - after he signed hundreds of death penalties without any remorse, after he started wars in which so many people were killed and many more suffered injuries that will last for the rest of their lives, he now decided to for once extend a life, becoming the most repulsive and hypocrit and hateable person I know of). Moreover, he is making this personal case a political one. What happened to your division between state and religion? What about trias politica? What about freedom, liberty, democracy? Developments in the US are truly very scary.

reply from: Tam

Dude, when are you going to answer my question? I can see that you feel strongly about how you would want to be treated under certain circumstances, etc. But I've asked the same question twice; will you please give it a try? This is what I was talking about in my other post. Now this is the moment of truth, bkester. Are you going to be one of the people I was talking about in that post, or are you going to make any attempt to answer the question I actually have asked you (twice)?

reply from: Tam

See, here is an excellent example of just what I was talking about in that other post. It's hard to explain, the only way we'd understand is if we understood the intricacies of her 15 year old mind. In other words, she has no answer that makes any sense. Isn't that about the size of it? Go ahead, prove me wrong. Come up with a sensible answer to Dmourning's and my questions.

reply from: bkester

Oh Tam, why are you so pushy? You want to force me to answer your question, why? Is it the same way in which you want to force others to not have an abortion, even if they prefer to do so? Anyway, I think this case has been before court several times, and I also know that this has done Mrs. Schiavo no good at all. I can only say what I want in such a situation, and I also know that my partner knows how I feel about that. So if it would happen to me, it is clear what would have to be done with my life. Same for Terri, therefore. What purpose does it have to eternally stretch her life, just for the sake of politics (as is happening lately)? It is pretty disgusting to me. Without that feeding tube, she would have died a natural death 15 years ago. All doctors that were consulted all claimed the same thing: she will never recover from the condition she has been in for 15 years. And fortunately, today the federal judge ruled that the tube should not be reconnected. Poor Mrs. Schiavo, she is being used as a pawn in a sick game.

And for all those who think that this opinion is inhumane: don't you agree that you can die in a humane way? That there is a right to live, but also a right to die? That in the end, we all have our own reposbility to our life and death? And that, by extension, a mother has her own responsibility to whoever grows inside her? Who is better: a woman who feels she cannot face the responsibility of a pregnancy, or one who does carry out the pregnancy, but chain smokes until and after the child is born?

Well, that's several topics in one. But when I see people who have a different opinion being called genocidal, that is something that really outrages me. Especially coming from someone working in the US army...

reply from: Tam

So this is your way of proving that you will never answer this simple question? When are you going to get it that This Is Not About What You Want. Who cares what you would want if you were in various incapacitated situations? I don't really care! Write a living will about it. It's irrelevant to the topic. This is about Terri. Not you. Your wishes are as irrelevant as mine. Ok? Here is the question you keep avoiding.

Since there is no written evidence as to Terri's wishes, all we have is two conflicting stories. Her husband's story (she would want to die) and her family's story (she wants to live). In the absence of any evidence either way, do you think it is right that she be killed?

reply from: Pasha

Howdy Evereyone -- newbie here -- long time reader, first time poster and all that jazz.

Sorry to interrupt your exchange, Tam and Bkester, but something was said that I found intriguing.

Bkester you mentioned a few posts ago a "right to die."  Tell me more about this concept -- it sounds ominous to me. 

Rights are tied to obligations, if you catch my drift 

reply from: KTMaiLove

Well I can't really put my answer to words. It's more of a feeling. But with legal abortions come less deaths because then instead of an illegal abortion in some bad neighborhood there would be sanitary ones in hospitals. Less chance of infection and loss of ovaries. So the woman may continue living and you wouldn't end up with the loss of two people instead of one. Also the option of abortions for rape, incest, and babies that could end up killing the mother at childbirth are still open. But with the legalization of abortions come the people who abuse that privilege. If schools had better sexual education and taught more about contraception and abstinence there is more likely to be less abortions.

Like I said it's hard to explain. But my question to people is... if I hadn't told you I was 15 would you have taken me more seriously? Because everyone seems to think I'm on a teen angst rampage.

reply from: sarah

It's stunning that this country is taking this turn...killing a woman who is only disabled. She didn't commit a crime, but she would probably be allowed to live even longer if she had.

There is so much more to her story than is being reported in the media. Is everyone aware that the Dept. of Children and Familes filed a petition containing 30 new allegations of abuse, neglect and exploitation on Terri's behalf?

Or that Dr. Carole Liberman, board certified psychiatrist on the Clinical Falculty of UCLA says that Terri's husband fits the profile of wife abuse?

He even put her two little cats to death after she became ill (or whatever put her in the state she is in now.)

You won't find the findings of Dr. William Hammesfahr making the news. He's a Nobel Prize Nominee nuerologists who examined Terri for 10 hours saying that she is NOT in a PSV state and that if he were allowed to he could treat her and give her a much better quality of life. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize because of the treatments he has devised for these types of patients. There are 33 other nuerologists across the nation that have come forward stating she is not in a PSV state and she could be treated.

But, in a culture of death...what does of any of that matter?????

reply from: Tam

You have been lied to. I once believed the same lies you believe. Lies about how many women died from back-alley butchers before Roe v. Wade. Lies about whether or not the unborn child is a living human being whose life has worth. Lies about the safety of legal abortions. I can see that what you really want is to save women's lives. And that is commendable. But the reason you cannot defend your position is that it is indefensible, because it is based on false premises. I don't have time to educate you about the truth of all these things right now, and I doubt you'd believe my words anyway. But I urge you to investigate those things I listed at the beginning of this email. When I was a teenager, I was told those things as well. There is a reason so many people change from being pro-abortion to being anti-abortion. It is finding out that the entire pro-abortion platform is specious. I urge you to look deeper than the mass media and those who would profit from abortion. Underneath all this rhetoric about women and saving their lives, there are ugly, ugly truths about the deaths of both women and their children. Don't take my word for it. Just realize that at 15 your thought process on this subject is not closed, and in fact should never be closed. Keep an open mind. You may find yourself shocked at what once were your own beliefs. And, as long as I'm on the subject, keep an open mind about other pro-life topics as well. People become vegetarians all the time, for example. As for whether you would have been taken more seriously had you not revealed your age, I can only speak for myself. For me, I find the fact that you are a teenager a tremendous relief. When someone is unable to articulate his or her views very well, doesn't seem to have really thought the issue through, etc, it is a relief to realize that the reason for that is the only one that is valid: you are young. Frankly, for a 15 year old, you write fairly well and seem to have thought about things a bit. If you had revealed your age to be 51 instead of 15, I would have felt a sense of dismay rather than relief. I know that when I was a teenager, I saw the issue much as you do now. And I know that because I have an open mind, I was able to change my mind when the reasons for my belief were exposed to be false. Because you are a teenager, I assume the same process will happen for you, and so actually I feel a sense of kinship with you, even if you don't think you'll ever change your mind and therefore naturally feel anything but kinship for me. When I was in college, I smoked cigarettes even if I could tell it was bothering those around me and even though I knew it was bad for their health and for mine. Now I am one of those people who wishes others wouldn't smoke everywhere so I could get some fresh air! I care about my health and the health of others. Actually, I wonder how much of my apathy was related to my pro-abortion stance. It is hard to stick up for life when you support abortion. But my point is basically just that your age will probably actually make people take you MORE seriously, at least I will. Also, this issue affects you more than a 51 year old. It is your generation which is being slaughtered in the womb. And if you don't think that's what's happening, dig deeper on this issue.

reply from: Tam

Update: Terri is not doing well. Anyone who has been considering activism on her behalf should act now.

And for those who think she should die, again I pose the question no one will answer:

Since there is no evidence as to Terri's wishes, all we have is two conflicting stories. Her husband's story (she would want to die) and her family's story (she wants to live). In the absence of any evidence either way, do you think it is right that she be killed?

reply from: sarah

I hope people will watch Hannity and Colmes tonight on Fox. They are having a nurse on there who is able to speak out now. She took care of Terri for nearly two years and boy oh boy, it's very interesting to say the least!!!! I've heard her twice on the radio today. It's absolutley STUNNING what she has to say.

reply from: Tam

what time is h&c on? i don't get cable so i don't think i can get it, but i will try!

reply from: sarah

Rats Tam!!! They are on cable. It's on at 7pm PST on the Fox channel.

But, you can read her affidaviate on www.helpterri.org her name is Carla Iyer. The affidavates are on the right hand side, you have scroll down to see her name.

reply from: Tam

I think it's 9 pm EST. That can't be right, though, because that'd be 6 pm PST. ??

But I'll just read the affadavit. Sounds interesting! Argh this is so frustrating! At least I am not doing a hunger strike like Becki Snow (one of the blogsforterri.com bloggers). I am sure many people are. Argh!!!

reply from: sarah

Oops...you're right Tam...it is 9pm EST....sorry. I've been listening to her this afternoon. It's staggering to know what a monster this so called husband is. I don't feel he really is a husband, since he has a common law wife and two children.

If Terri could have a choice in that little matter perhaps she would want a divorce based on adultry. Guess we're all going to have to put that little detail in any living wills we might get! In the event my spouse moves on with his/her life with a common law spouse and children please divorce me from this &^&^!

reply from: Tam

LOL

Funny you managed to make me laugh even though I was literally sitting at my desk crying. But the way you put that made me laugh. And the thing that's so distressing is the media coverage tends to be SO biased it's ridiculous. I don't know why I am surprised considering how they handle the abortion issue. But I even had someone ask me on this board where I was getting this stuff about Michael Schiavo trying to kill Terri. The coverage is so one-sided it is ridiculous. How can anyone know anything about the case and not know that her friends and family think he was abusing her and tried to kill her? Because the media coverage is so biased, they don't mention that little tidbit.

reply from: Dmourning

Simply because marriage is a sacred covenant and trust between a man and a woman (remeber the rhetoric from last year's elections!). As such, her husband has the right and obligation to determine what medical care or lack thereof his wife receives in the event she can't make those decisions on her own.

At this point, it shouldn't even be a political issue about whether Terri lives or dies thus galvanizing the "culture of life" crowd, it should be an issue of letting those who legally have the right to make medical decisions, make them without interference.

reply from: mom5

You are right dmourning...that is exactly what it has come down to...and he (husband) won because he legally can make the decision.

I can say that I have honestly learned a lesson.  I have (had) a living will that states(d) my husband can make the decisions about my medical treatment (and unfortunately food/nurtrition is a medical treatment)..needless to say..my living will has been ripped up.  As much I would want to trust my husband to make the right decision for me...you never know the future.  To me, food shouldn't be a medical treatment..everyone should have the right to be fed whether feeding tube or not.. and allowed to die by real natural causes...not starvation.  I really think that's what everyone is "up in arms" about.  It's really upsetting that if someone were to starve to death their animals they would be looking at jail time..but to starve a person regardless of physical condition is okay...that's what is so upsetting to everyone D....but you did make a good point.  This should be a lesson to us all.

reply from: sarah

Hi Tam,

I'm glad you had a moment to chuckle. But, I know what kind it was...the sad kind.

I wonder why the same law that gives her husband the right to do this as her husband, can and have chose to ignore the "vows" that made him her husband? If they didn't write their own, didn't he say that he would be with her thru "sickness and in health" AND FORSAKING ALL OTHERS????

Why then, doesn't the fact that he broke ALL his vows to her make their marraige contract null and void?

There seems to be something missing in the process of all the debate over the legality of all this...where is the humainty? The law says this...the law says that....the judge did this...the appeals said that, etc., etc....but, where's the humanity, where's the heart and soul of all this??? It's so terribly sad.

reply from: bkester

OK, Tam, since you couldn't find my answer (I thought I had been clear): as Dmourning also said: the husband is her legal representative as long as she cannot express her own will. Moreover, this case has been before lawyers, judges, courts for what, more than 7 years? Experts have had their say, the case has been investigated over and over, so the answer is very clear. It is just too bad that some politicians decided to overrule a court decision and turn it into a political issue, really sick.

But I have another interesting case for you prolifers. Interestingly enough, last week a 6-month old baby, born deformed and with a serious lung problem, was killed AGAINST the will of the parents. Because the then governor of the state signed a law in 1999, stating that doctors could decide the fate of babies, overruling the will of parents. Now the interesting part is that that state is Texas, and the governor was, you probably heard of him.... George W. Bush! So far for his great concern for life... Heartbreaking, really.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know what you make of this story, that didn't make it to the headlines....

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3084934

http://www.opednews.com/wade_032005_delay_schiavo.htm

reply from: sarah

Hi Tam, I must have been even more upset yesterday than I thought. Not only did I get the time wrong for H&C on Fox, but gave you the wrong web site....gads. Anyhoo, the right one is www.terrisfight.org

This web site has alot of the actual documentation. Sorry for all the mixs up. Today shouldn't be much better as I'm even more upset over this whole ugly situation.

reply from: Tam

The latest news:

With Terri Schiavo now in her sixth day without food or water, Florida's Department of Children and Families says it might remove the brain-injured woman by force, if necessary, from the hospice where she has lived the past four years.

Department secretary Lucy Hadi told the Palm Beach Post her staff is relying on a state law giving authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult "suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury."

Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday by a court order requested by her husband, Michael Schiavo, who contends Terri had expressed a wish to not live under her present condition. Parents Robert and Mary Schindler dispute the court's finding that their daughter is in a "persistant vegetative state," citing numerous physicians who believe she is responsive and could benefit from therapy.

At a news conference this afternoon, Gov. Jeb Bush confirmed the DCF, under his authority, is considering the move.

Bush said new information has come to light warranting intervention, including a review of Terri Schiavo's condition by neurologist Dr. William Cheshire, who claims she may have been misdiagnosed. Cheshire believes Schiavo to be in a "minimally conscious state," not a "persistant vegetative state" as courts have determined.

"It is imperative that she be stablized so the DCF team can fulfill their statute to review the facts surrounding the case," Bush said.

Hadi said DCF must file a petition to remove Terri Schiavo from the Pinellas Park, Fla., hospice but could take action without judicial approval if the department believes it's warranted.

The law says emergency medical treatment can be given to the vulnerable adult as long as "such treatment does not violate a known health care advance directive prepared by the vulnerable adult."

Terri Schiavo did not have a written directive, but courts have backed her husband's claims that she made her wishes known orally in informal conversations.

The court history would not prevent DCF from taking action, however, according to Hadi.

"We're not compelled to look at prior judicial proceedings," Hadi told the Post. "What we're compelled to look at is the presenting circumstance and any allegation of abuse and neglect that we've received. So we have to deal with those and fulfill our statutory responsibility, notwithstanding anything else that may have gone on before."

She insisted the court decisions upholding Michael Schiavo are questionable.

"There's nothing about this case that has been clear-cut, except our concern," Hadi said. "We're doing everything we can to be of assistance."

Meanwhile, a coalition of religious and political groups is urging President Bush and his brother Florida Gov. Jeb Bush to use their executive powers to order police to take Terri Schiavo into protective custody.

Earlier today, the Schindlers asked a federal appeals court to review immediately its three-judge panel's denial of a motion to restore the feeding tube.

The request for an "expedited rehearing" of the full 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came 10 hours after the panel said in a 2-1 ruling that the parents ''failed to demonstrate a substantial case on the merits of any of their claims.''

Today's ruling was the latest legal blow for the Schindlers. Doctors have said Schiavo could survive one to two weeks without water and nutrients.

Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, said both sides were likely to pursue their appeals all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

www.wnd.com

reply from: YGOR

Tam:

Thanks for the update.

But, please remember to give credit to the site you took this from - worldnetdaily.

Jeb Bush failed back in October, 2003 and again this time.  Several legal firms contacted him on days 1 and 2 in October, 2003 informing him that under the Florida constittution he had the authority and the responsibility to intervene.  He has opted to not intervene.  He is not pro-life.

If only the Republicans would stop caring about the whining from the Left and do the right thing for once!

Personally, the last few days have been very hard as I watch this tragedy and injustice unfold.

The system is completely broke in Florida.  The police were called by the paramedics 15 years ago as it looked like an attempted murder.  They failed to follow up with a thorough investigation.  Doctors examining Terri at the time noted several fractures to various bones in her body.  A sure sign of severe physical trauma.  Again, a thorough police investigation is warranted.  But, no the doctors concoct some fairy tale that Terri suffered a very rare bone disease that would cause these fractures without severe physical trauma to her person.  The endless list of legal and judicial abuses in this case can be reviewed on various websites.  The system is broke in Florida.

One thing that saddens me is that we have not seen thousands turn out at the hospice to protest against this murder.  Was it too much to ask of pro-life Christians and Jews, and any others to take a few hours out of their weekends and a few dollars out of their gas tanks and go to Pinellas Park?  I would have done so, if I lived in Florida.

I am angry and heart broken at the same time.

YGOR

reply from: sarah

Oh YGOR, I feel the exact same way you do...angry and heart broken at the same time.

The Florida legislature just voted down the last bill that would have helped save her...this poor woman just can't seem to catch a break.

There will be a day of reckoning for all concerned in this matter...starting with her so called husband.

I'll keep hoping and praying til the bitter end.

reply from: YGOR

Proof that something is amiss or out of place.

The system is broke in Florida.  And, perhaps in your state also!

http://www.theempirejournal.com/03210578_pinellas_county_governm.htm

YGOR

reply from: sarah

I don't even have to think if something is "broke" in my state...I live in one of the most liberal states in the union!

reply from: Navynate

Anyone who supports Mike Schivo to kill Terri supports a total scum bag who has proven that he doesn't give a ratts butt about Terri. Only those who are looking out for Terri's best interests should be allowed to be her guardian. A scum bag like Mike Schivo should never to be allowed to kill his wife when he has proven that he has no intention of looking out for her best interests and to do what her wishes were to be kept alive or not. If you are someone's guardian and you break your marital vows then you are striped of your rights as a guardian and then they will be given to next of kin then.

reply from: sarah

Well, looks like the death merchants are going to have their way. The Supreme Court has denied to hear Terri's case.

Where's their humanity? What a barbaric way to sentence this helpless woman to death.

Our governement is quickly becoming a fearful master instead of the faithful servant it's suppose to be.

I've been listening and watching carefully to all the "talking heads" on this subject, and have decided I'd rather have almost anyone else decide my fate then these so called "bioethicists". They are truly merchants of death.

reply from: Tam

Gov. Bush Requests Custody of Schiavo After Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case
Thursday, March 24, 2005
FOXNews.com

PINELLAS PARK, Fla.  — Florida Gov. Jeb Bush filed a request to take custody of Terri Schiavo (search) on Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court (search) once again refused to order the severely brain-damaged woman's feeding tube reinserted.

Circuit Court Judge George Greer (search), who has consistently ruled that Schiavo did not want to be kept alive artificially, is expected to decide by noon on Bush's request. He also barred the Department of Children & Families in an emergency order from taking custody of the woman.

Turning custody of Schiavo over to the state would be an unprecedented and highly unlikely move.

"Absent of kidnapping, Terri Schiavo will remain in this hospice," said Bob Felos, an attorney for Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and legal guardian.

But just as unlikely was the prospect that Bush would give up trying to get Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted before exhausting every legal option, no matter how remote.

"The governor is disappointed [at the Supreme Court decision] and will continue to do whatever he can within the law to save Terri's life," Bush spokesman Jacob DiPietre said.

reply from: Tam

Judge Greer on Thursday denied the state petition to put Schiavo into state custody but is now considering a petition by the DCF. It says a neurologist who examined Schiavo's medical records found she was "most likely in a state of minimal consciousness" rather than the persistent vegetative state previous doctors have diagnosed.

According to the petition, the agency's board-certified neurologist, Dr. William Polk Cheshire, has information "that seriously challenges the diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state," as courts have upheld.

"This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action," Gov. Bush said.

[excerpt from CNN article]

That Greer makes me want to scream!

reply from: sarah

I've been reading up on this so called Judge Greer...quite a judical activist. Not long ago he ruled against a wife who wanted her husband to be allowed 30 more days to see if he could recover from a heart attack to the objections of the children of said man.

The poor wife had to stand by as the ruling said her husband was to die....hmmm, makes you wonder if he hasn't got an "agenda".

reply from: YGOR

Jeb Bush is no Andrew Jackson.

George Bush is no Andrew Jackson.

Andrew Jackson (our 7th president, pictured on the twenty dollar bills that come out of those ATMs) knew that enforcement powers reside in the executive branch of government.  He clashed with the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (I forget the specific issue at the time) and said "Let Mr. Marshall enforce his own order."

Jeb Bush has the authority and responsibility to act on behalf of Terri Schindler Schiavo.  He fails to do so because of his fear of provoking a temper tantrum from the Left.

The Republicans are not pro-life and they do not seek to restore the balance between the branches of governemnt called for in the Constitution.

When will pro-life voters realize this?

YGOR

reply from: Tam

I realize that the Republican party is not pro-life. I have never voted for a Republican OR Democrat and never will. Even if the individual candidate agrees with my views, to affiliate oneself with a corrupt political machine such as the Demopublican "two-party system" superparty is to lose my vote.

reply from: YGOR

I realize that the Republican party is not pro-life. I have never voted for a Republican OR Democrat and never will. Even if the individual candidate agrees with my views, to affiliate oneself with a corrupt political machine such as the Demopublican "two-party system" superparty is to lose my vote.

Tam and other readers:

The two major parties have been on watch since the Civil War (or should I say The War Between the States?).  (We no longer have the Whigs or the Know Nothings to blame.)  It is unrealistic to expect these parties - which have given us these problems - to help to solve these problems.

I stopped voting major party in the early nineties, and then for several years voted for minor party candidates before I finally stopped voting all together.  It is a shame that we do not get candidates who really are committed to getting us back to the Constitution.

YGOR

reply from: Tam

I realize that the Republican party is not pro-life. I have never voted for a Republican OR Democrat and never will. Even if the individual candidate agrees with my views, to affiliate oneself with a corrupt political machine such as the Demopublican "two-party system" superparty is to lose my vote.

Tam and other readers:

The two major parties have been on watch since the Civil War (or should I say The War Between the States?).  (We no longer have the Whigs or the Know Nothings to blame.)  It is unrealistic to expect these parties - which have given us these problems - to help to solve these problems.

I stopped voting major party in the early nineties, and then for several years voted for minor party candidates before I finally stopped voting all together.  It is a shame that we do not get candidates who really are committed to getting us back to the Constitution.

YGOR

I hear you, YGOR. It is a shame. And it's a shame that people like you and me end up not voting at all rather than throw away our votes by casting them for the lesser of two obvious evils. I don't always abstain. Sometimes I do vote, but never for anyone with a snowball's chance in hell of winning, unfortunately. But at least I can walk out of the booth with a clear conscience. I see an election as a job interview, and myself as the employer. I won't recommend hiring an incompetent or a crook, even if I'm not given any other feasible candidates for the position. I'll abstain entirely rather than support someone I don't actually want to get the position! If only more people felt the same way, we'd have reformed this supposedly "two-party" system by now!

reply from: whosays

Saw a good quote: "No branch or agency of government that steps in to protect an innocent individual from harm -- and in this case, killing -- has ever overstepped its bounds" and two good articles on the power and obligation of the executive branch of government/chief executive to act as a co-EQUAL branch of government (as opposed to letting the will one branch of government reign unchallenged).

For the full details on http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43472 and also http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43481 .  

As chief executives, both Jeb Bush (state) and George W. Bush (federal) have the power to direct the executive branch of goverment to do what THEY think is constitutional. On the other hand, if our chief executives are simply always going to say that they must bow to the will of the judicial branch, then we no longer have EQUAL branches of government. Or at least not until a chief executive has the spine to exercise his power of 'JUDICIAL VETO' (yes, the executive does have that power) - by ignoring the will of the court.

At the very least, Jeb and George, could publicly commit to PARDON ANY PERSON WHO IS CHARGED WITH VIOLATING THE JUDGE'S COURT ORDER! Helloooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This would surely result in a flood of people giving food, water, therapy, medicine or other aid to Terry.

 

reply from: Tam

whoa that is a REALLY good idea (the pardoning bit)

reply from: BorisBadanov

Whosays:

Your post reminded me of a story that, strangely, has been on my mind today

 

Pilate said to them, "Then what shall I do with Jesus called Messiah?" They all said, "Let him be crucified!"

 

But he said, "Why? What evil has he done?" They only shouted the louder, "Let him be crucified!"

 When Pilate saw that he was not succeeding at all, but that a riot was breaking out instead, he took water and washed his hands in the sight of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this man's blood. Look to it yourselves."

 

And the whole people said in reply, "His blood be upon us and upon our children."

Then he released Barabbas to them, but after he had Jesus scourged, he handed him over to be crucified.

For those of you fasting in observance of Good Friday, please offer your fast for Terri Schiavo and her family.

reply from: Dmourning

The problem with that is that it would be a violation of the separation of powers. What would the point of laws and judicial verdicts if people dont have to obey them knowing the executive branch will undermine those laws with mass pardons based on personal beliefs?

That's why they won't do it. If they did, it would be political suicide.

reply from: Murf

Texas Paper: Bush Willing to Err on Side of Death as Gov.

Meanwhile, in Bush's home state of Texas, a columnist for The Star Telegram newspaper has revealed that as governor, Bush's position on cases like Terri Schiavo's was diametrically opposed to the one he is now advocating. As governor, Bush signed a Texas law in 1999 that allows a person's next of kin to make decisions regarding life support for patients whose conditions have been judged hopeless by a physician and a hospital's bioethics committee. The column by Bob Ray Sanders is called "Bush Willing to Err on Side of Death in Texas." It says there are 152 reasons why President Bush's statements and actions regarding the Terri Schiavo case don't make sense. That is the number of people executed in Texas during Bush's tenure as governor.

Not to mention all the valuable lives that are being taken in the Middle East ...

reply from: Allizdog2000

This question is for you Pro-Abortionist:

Are you going to celebrate when Terri passes away? or more like a sigh of relief?

Two generations of selfishness is leading to her death.  Michael Schiavo's selfishness and all these pro-death judges.   Pro-Death, Pro-Abortion.  

pro-choice/Death/Abortionists seriously do not believe there is hope in the human condition.  

The political correct term "those with different opinions" is complete and utter bull, it's a WRONG opinion and a CONFLICTING opinion.

The Pro-Death/Abortionists hate Christianity because Catholics and Christians are the only religous sects that really actively put up a fight against this wrong.     

You Pro-Abortionists are SELFISH and little.  

  

reply from: Dmourning

It will be a sigh of relief. Relief knowing that Terri's wishes have finally been carried out and that self-serving politicians who have successfully turned Terri's private battle into a political football will have lost.

You see him as selfish - I see him as loyal to his wife. Funny you bring up the judges...multiple judges in Florida have sided with Michael Shiavo - the same "Red State" Florida that handed the 2000 election to W.

Neither do Christians. They believe we are born with the original sin and doomed to a one way ticket to hell just for being born.

The Muslim extremists hate America's morality and wrongs also.

I personally hate the religion because it spews ignorance, superstition and hypocrisy at every turn. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" - but then protest with "God hates fags" signs at funerals? Give me a break, man. I can't believe you would stick up for that drivel.

I stand up and fight for what I believe in. Is that little? That's big, sir.

reply from: Allizdog2000

I stand up and fight for what I believe in. Is that little? That's big, sir.

That is especially big and bold of you, especially when you are WRONG.

reply from: Dmourning

And you're an idiot. What's your point?

reply from: Allizdog2000

And you're an idiot. What's your point?

Edited by moderator 

reply from: Navynate

Dmourning,

A guy who has two kids with another lady he's lived with for 10 years is loyal to his wife. What kind of idiot believes that?  If that's being loyal, then what's not being loyal to her, Killing her himself? That's complete baloney. He's a real scumbag, he's done eveything to kill her and then he'll cash in as well after she's dead. What kind of a loyal husband would want his wife dead so that he can get a nice huge check to spend with his live in sweetie and their 2 kids? I wish I could send him and e-mail or a letter and tell him what a scumbag he really is and how much alot of people dislike him and hope that everything bad that can happen to him does happen to him. How can you defend someone who's a total scumbag, unless you have a fondness for scumbags your self and think that all scumbags need to unite and fight having good moral values? Are those the kinds of guys you support and defend? It sure seems like you defend scum bags and think that they are what every guy should be like. 

Scumbags like Mike Schivo, unite and fight for other scumbags who deserve nothing but scorn!!!    

reply from: Dmourning

I bet you learned that piece of literary genius in your 6 years in high school, didn't you?

reply from: Dmourning

All the money from medical malpractice has been spent on lawyers. This isn't about money - if it was, why didn't Michael Shiavo take the 1$ Million offered by the California businessman to butt out?

reply from: Navynate

Dmourning,

I think that he gets alot more money if she dies. That's why he won't divorce her. I think that he gets alot more $$$ if she dies, (after he has her killed). If she really would not want to die, then why is her family fighting so hard to keep her alive? And why doesn't he just give up and say tried to allow her to die and just let her family take care of her then? Just say that he did everything he could just divorce her and allow her family to take care of her, what's wrong with that?

I noticed you didn't mention anything about him living with a lady for over 10 years and have 2 kids with her as well. When he violated his marital vows, then he should've lost his gaurdian status bacause he wasn't fulfilling his role as loving husband. If you cheat on your wife and have 2 kids with another lady, then you have proven that you are a poor excuse of a husband and not worthy of being her guardian, (a gaurdian is supposed to look out for their best interests. Well it's obvious that Mr Scumbag, (aka Mike Schivo) isn't looking out for Terri's best interests at all right now. If he was, he would give up gaurdianship of her and then quit trying to have her killed by starvation. He's the kind of scum bag who are prochoice and defend the rights of women to kill their unborn babies.

prochoice means for some killing a women who isn't in a vegatative state, legalized prostitution (are you in favor of that too?), legalized drugs that are now illegal.

reply from: Dmourning

Fair enough. It's only fair that we expand that to include excluding cheating spouses from being eligible for child support and alimony payments upon divorce.

reply from: Tam

And you're an idiot. What's your point?

You are a @#)*(%&.

I really hate to say this. I mean, I hate being put in the position to have to say this, and I wish you had not put me there! But: I have reported this post to the moderator, because of the inappropriate language. I know Dmourning was egging you on, and for the record I feel Dmourning's "idiot" remark was extremely unnecessary and rude, but I feel you have crossed the line by using profanity. Sorry to be the class tattletale. I don't know if Terry will censure or censor you or not, but I felt it was worth calling attention to, because if this sort of thing is permitted I think it will really lower the standards of this forum. If you two must insult and curse at one another, and have nothing of substance to say, I respectfully request that you use the newly enabled private messages so the rest of us don't have to waste our time wading through this stuff.

reply from: Tam

Fair enough.

It would be, if it had happened that way. But Terri is dying right now because nothing about this case was ever fair enough.

I think the whole thing stinks. And one thing that just occurs to me is that it's insanity that while there are any doctors at all who think they can help and are willing to try, the opinion of doctors who think they can't help is used to prevent those who think they can from trying. If my child were in need of therapy of any kind, and there were one doctor on the face of the earth who still thought there was a chance, I'd want to keep trying. Plus, new therapies are being developed every day. If she really has no consciousness and is in no pain, as Michael maintains, then what is the harm in keeping her alive?

Interesting idea. Do you actually think that would be fair? I think in terms of alimony, that would make sense. But your child is still your child even if your spouse is a cheater, so I don't think anyone should be able to use the actions of his or her spouse to get out of child support. The only thing that I think should excuse someone from child support is if the custodial parent says he or she doesn't want or doesn't need the support. Other than that the parent should be responsible for doing whatever he or she can, within his or her means, to support his or her child.

reply from: YGOR

Here are two links worth visiting.

The second of which brings to light the possible cover up of Terri being injured (assaulted) in the hospital.  It may very well be that her serious brain injury occurred while she was in hospital.

A must read.  This assertion - by a nuerologist - starts about halfway or so down the second article.

YGOR

http://www.theempirejournal.com/0313055_schiavogate_the_big_cove.htmhttp://www.theempirejournal.com/0313055_schiavogate_the_big_cove.htm

http://www.theempirejournal.com/14902_new_evidence_of_alleged_as.htm

reply from: YGOR

And you're an idiot. What's your point? You are a piece of sh!t.

Rude - perhaps.

Appropriate - perhaps.

Dmourning has been talking down to any and all who disagree w him.

He is not willing to consider any other evidence or any other viewpoints that contradict his preconceived and prejudicial views.  Personally, I don't believe he has added anything of substance to the debate.

One man's opinion.

YGOR

reply from: yoda

He has to. He's so high above us all, that's the only way he can talk to us.

reply from: Dmourning

Yoda, I'm glad you and I finally have something we can both agree on.

reply from: Allizdog2000

Yoda, I'm glad you and I finally have something we can both agree on.

I request that everyone start ignoring Dmourning. 

reply from: sarah

Yoda, I'm glad you and I finally have something we can both agree on.

I request that everyone start ignoring Dmourning. 

Been there, doing that.

On some web sites I visit they have an "ignore" button...it sure helps with the flame wars that can be so easily started.

reply from: Dmourning

I love it, you people can't face the reality of not being able to counter my agruments so you think "ignoring" me will help!

Go ahead, "ignore" me, you know I'm right and I know you're reading.

reply from: yoda

Been there, am doing that.

reply from: Tam

All the money from medical malpractice has been spent on lawyers. This isn't about money - if it was, why didn't Michael Shiavo take the 1$ Million offered by the California businessman to butt out?

Let me ask you something. It's a hypothetical question, so disassociate it from what you think you know about this case. If you were presented with the following two options, which would you choose?

Option A: You get a million dollars, but the only witness to a serious crime you once committed will probably have the opportunity to finger you as the perpetrator.

Option B: You don't get a million dollars, and you get to get married and live happily ever after, no one the wiser about your crime.

I believe that's why Michael did not, and will not, take any amount of money to let Terri's parents attempt to rehabilitate her. I understand that it doesn't fit unless he is guilty. But since I think he's guilty, it makes perfect sense to me. If I had to choose between a million dollars and my freedom, it'd be a pretty easy choice.

reply from: Murf

Tom DeLay Took Father Off Life Support in 1988

The Los Angeles Times has revealed that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's family went through a similar ordeal as Schiavo's family. While Delay has denounced the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube as "an act of barbarism", he supported allowing his father to be taken off life support 16 years ago. In 1988, Delay's father suffered a freak accident and went into a coma. He was kept alive by intravenous lines and oxygen equipment. Then when his kidneys failed, the DeLay family decided against connecting him to a dialysis machine. Charles Delay died on Dec. 14, 1988 surrounded by his family. Tom Delay's mother said "There was no point to even really talking about it. There was no way [Charles] wanted to live like that. Tom knew - we all knew - his father wouldn't have wanted to live that way."

reply from: sarah

Okay, we've allready gone over this in another post.

You're not bringing anything new to the debate.

The article was so biased it borders on the pathetic.

Terri Schiavo's situation and that of Mr. Delay's are entirely different.

Nice try....but no go.

reply from: Navynate

Does anyone have the e-mail address of Micheal Schivo, his lawyer or the one of the retarded (and that's an insult to the intelligence of retarded people, anyone with 2 brain cells in their head would know that this judge is a moron) judge who said that she should die? I really want to let them know what kind of scum bags they are for killing Terri Schivo, and how much they should be hated by anyone who values life. I know I'm not supposed to hate people like that, but when they do something especially evil (like Hitler and Saddam) then it's especially hard not to hate scum bags like them.

And I agree a million bucks for his freedom is a small price to pay to cover a murder of his own wife. What kind of a moron can't see that he wants her dead to cover up his own abuse of her? The lack of oxygen to the brain causes brain damage, and the fact that this whole thing about how she ended up in her condition sounds like a coverup to me. If he had nothing to do with it then he would have nothing to worry about, but if he's guilty of attempted (until she dies) murder then he has alot to worry about. He's a complete piece of crap as people go. Why didn't anyone in law enforcement investigate if she had been abused by him or not in the past? If there is any doubt about how she ended up in the condition that she ended up in, then he should've lost guardianship of her ASAP. You should not have a guardian who could've tried to kill that same person. What kind of idiot would allow that to continue happening in a case? He hired the best Right To Kill lawyer he could get, Terri's parents could only get someone who wasn't experienced enough to do much good to help them. And didn't have the resourses to help nail Mr. Piece of Crap of a Husband to the wall with some evidence that he wanted her dead awhile ago. This whole thing thicks me off, alot of people could care less if Terri can live without a feeding tube or not. They just care about the rights of the husband (Mr. Piece of crap for a husband) to end his wifes life. 

Newsmax has a good article about how they were out manouvered by his lawyer and by the time they realized that they needed some more help, it was too late. But the judge who decided that she should die should've stopped that from happening.

reply from: Tam

Here is an article about Terri from a liberal perspective. This person argues that saving Terri is a cause for the left. Anyone who considers yourself liberal and does not support saving Terri yet, please read. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0328-25.htm

reply from: sarah

Very interesting article.

When you cut thru all the "stuff" (for lack of a better word), surrounding this profoundly sad situation, this article sums it up perfectly.

reply from: Tam

I don't know how many of you have read any of the Blogs for Terri (http://www.blogsforterri.com/). I haven't read many but one I have been reading is by Becki Snow (http://becki-snow.blogspot.com/), who is in Florida and on a hunger strike and has been blogging the whole time. Her entry today seemed to me to be worth sharing with you. Here is an excerpt:

reply from: Tam

Here's a nice tidbit from MSNBC news. I guess there's a whole video accompanying this inane statement.

For some details on how the body of an awake, aware 42 year old woman handles being deprived of food and water, see the blog of Becki Snow, mentioned in the previous post, and read the details of what she has experienced on her continuing hunger strike.

reply from: sarah

For some details on how the body of an awake, aware 42 year old woman handles being deprived of food and water, see the blog of Becki Snow, mentioned in the previous post, and read the details of what she has experienced on her continuing hunger strike.

Just once I'd like one of these doctors, who are so all fired sure of what everything is like be the patient.

This doctor should have someone put in and than take out a feeding tube (no sedation) and then come back and tell us what it's like...but, not before going without food and fluids for two weeks.

I'm in contact with a retired doctor on a fairly regular basis...her statement is always..."be careful, doctors kill."

There was a dr. on MSNBC yesterday, a Dr. Healy who is the former head of NIH. She says Terri has not had the proper evaulation. The standards to diagnois PVS have changed since she was last evaluated.

At this point it's like talking to brick walls. It's been decreed she shall die and die she shall.

reply from: Tam

As soon as the last hope was taken away, she gave up the ghost, as they say. As long as there was any hope left, Terri was still fighting to live. A dark day.

reply from: sarah

As soon as the last hope was taken away, she gave up the ghost, as they say. As long as there was any hope left, Terri was still fighting to live. A dark day.

Oh my gosh Tam, how insightful. I never thought of that. You're right, somehow she knew the fight was over.

In all of this one other thing was over-looked by the pro-death proponents...the human will to live.

reply from: Tam

Did you hear Michael wouldn't let her family be with her in her last hours? They apparently weren't allowed in to see her at the end--until it was over and what they were allowed to see was no longer Terri, just the body she once inhabited. One more in a long line of slaps in the face to the only real family she had, since although one's husband is supposed to be one's closest family, Michael Schiavo hardly qualifies as Terri's husband. And I will never refer to him as a widower--being Terri's widower is an honor Michael does not deserve. I am heartbroken for her family.

This is what my (pro-"choice," pro-Terri) sister wrote to me when I sent her the sad news:

I do believe in karma, in other words, "what goes around comes around." Harm will inevitably come to those who would harm others, as a natural consequence of a their own decisions. So it may seem like yesterday was Terri's last chance, but it was also Michael's last chance to do the right thing. He'll get his karmic lesson eventually. Like: the truth comes out, his girlfriend dumps him, and he goes to prison for the rest of his life.

reply from: sarah

The man had no heart, no mercy, no compassion. He was a control freak on the order of Scott Petterson...they are both sociopaths. Only difference is that Michael got the government to do his dirty work. Took him a tad longer than Scott to be sure...but they both did the same thing.

You are right Tam...we reap what we sow.

reply from: Tam

Yeah. They were both horrible. Although Michael had Terri tortured to death by starvation and thirst after denying her rehabilitative therapy and contact with her family and friends, Scott killed not only his wife but also their unborn child. Dangerous, dangerous men.

And as for thinking Michael did the wrong thing for the right reasons--that may be true. I don't think it is true, but I may be wrong. It is certainly true, however, that there is no difference between what happened and what would have happened had it been true that Michael is an abuser who tried to kill her and kept trying until she was dead. So even if Terri was not a woman being abused and whose husband tried to strangle her, then fabricated a story to finish the job with the approval of the court, what if such a woman does exist? Is there no protection for her? She would suffer the same fate as Terri--and much sooner than Terri, probably, unless she had parents as dedicated, loving, and persistent as the Schindlers, which is unlikely in and of itself.

reply from: Navynate

If his supporters had any brains at all, they should've looked at the kind of person he was and really question his motives and weather he was right or not. If someone who is leading a group or pushing an issue and a really bad person, then their followers should question if they are on the right side or not. Do those people have any concious left to tell them that they are wrong about something? Go to the website for Family Research Council a read what Tony Perkins wrote about Terri. I'm going to forward that to others in my family who supported Terri being starved to death.

I wonder what kind of a lady would be with a guy who had a wife who was disabled and who abandoned her as well in her condition? Why does she want a total scum bag for a husband or BF? Who's braindead there?  

reply from: Allizdog2000

Terri died today, Congratulation to the following people and organization:

- Michael Schiavo can now collect his winnings
- Planned Parenthood, NARAL and ACLU for being at the front of the Culture of Death and leading the
   charge, you have aborted a fully grown disablied woman. Good Job!

reply from: Dmourning

I have looked into it and can come up with no other conclusion but he was fulfilling a promise to his wife. He has had ample opportunity to "butt out" but kept fighting.

He turned down 1$ million from a California businessman to just go away.

He was motivated by nothing but giving his wife a dignified death.

A very understanding and thoughtful one.

You really shouldn't judge someone until you've walked in their shoes.

reply from: mom5

I have looked into it and can come up with no other conclusion but he was fulfilling a promise to his wife. He has had ample opportunity to "butt out" but kept fighting. He turned down 1$ million from a California businessman to just go away.

Honestly D, I need to know something here.  It's been asked on all the "talk radio" and other shows... 

If it really was her wish...why was she put on the feeding tube to begin with?  Why did her husband allow it to begin with?  Was it hope that something good would happen?  D - have you wondered about that like I have?

Sorry if this has already been discussed...I really haven't had much time to read ALL the posts here.

reply from: Dmourning

Of course he hoped something good would happen. Before all the bad blood and whatnot, her husband and parents actually worked together hoping for some kind of rehabilitation for her. They sent her to California for some special physical therapy. He even put her makeup on every day while in rehab. It's highly unlikely he would have went to these lengths if he hadn't any hope for any kind of recovery.

At a certain point, years later, he came to the realization that Terri was not coming back and it was time to help her with her wish. Michael Schiavo was realistic about this. Her parents, while I feel terribly for them, were just hanging on to something that just wasn't there. If she hadn't made that wish, why didn't he just divorce her in the first place and move on with his life?

reply from: Tam

Of course he hoped something good would happen. Before all the bad blood and whatnot, her husband and parents actually worked together hoping for some kind of rehabilitation for her. They sent her to California for some special physical therapy. He even put her makeup on every day while in rehab. It's highly unlikely he would have went to these lengths if he hadn't any hope for any kind of recovery.

At a certain point, years later, he came to the realization that Terri was not coming back and it was time to help her with her wish. Michael Schiavo was realistic about this. Her parents, while I feel terribly for them, were just hanging on to something that just wasn't there. If she hadn't made that wish, why didn't he just divorce her in the first place and move on with his life?

I must repeat that all of his actions could still be explained by the idea that he was covering up one crime while plotting/committing another. Her parents didn't suspect anything at first. Hey, neither did Laci Peterson's parents. They worked together with Scott to find Laci, never knowing Scott's attempts were just a coverup to try to make himself look innocent. Michael could have been doing the same thing by working with Terri's parents and putting makeup on her. There is testimony that indicates his attentions to Terri did not help her but harmed her. In other words, whether or not Michael has been good to Terri in the time between her collapse and his decision to remove her food is as debatable as whether he was good to her before her collapse. There is testimony that he is a scary, creepy guy. Some of her friends say she was considering divorce before her collapse. I know it's easier to believe that her parents were just seeing something that wasn't there, but I don't think that really answers the question. The question is: if Michael knew it was Terri's express wish to die rather than depend on a feeding tube, why did he have one installed in the first place? Are you saying that he acted against her wishes because he thought there was hope for her? Is that what you mean? Or do you think he did not remember her wishes until later? I smell a setup, that's what I'm saying. Even if you don't, you must smell something! (a rat? a fish? no, no...)

reply from: bkester

read an interview last week with a couple who lost their daughter in 1990 after she had been in a similar state as Terri has been for the last 15 years. it was accompanied by interviews with doctors. The latter all agreed that if a patient with severe brain damage comes out of a coma, and doesn't recover most of the brain function within years, all hope is lost for the recovery of that person. The brain then shrinks and the person is not able to use it anymore. Anything resembling a reaction is not more than a reflex, ie. reacting to a voice, opening of a door, etc. etc. There is 0% chance of recovery, not more.

The parents said that they clinged to hope of recovery for all those 16 years. Always looking for signs of improvement, which were never real, always imaginary. They were also relieved when it was finally agreed that she should be left to die. Of course, with the Terri story, it all came back to them, and they could very well imagine the struggle of the parents to try to keep their daughter with them. At the same time, they also said that they now realized that their hope had always been in vain, and with hindsight felt like a huge burden was taken off their shoulders. They also said that they had wanted her to die earlier, had they known better what her situation was.

Calling Terri's death an "execution" shows no understanding of the euthanasia debate. Portraying Mr. Schiavo as a murderer is a little too simple to my taste. It took him apparently years to realize that her battle was hopeless. It then took years to come arrive at her death mostly because of legal battles, and politicians putting their noses where they don't belong, only trying to score some points with their supporters (while acting in a completely contrary direction in similar cases, ordering death penalties carried out, etc. etc.). Whatever you think of Mr. Schiavo is not even interesting in this debate. Courts and specialists have looked into the matter, have investigated, and have, over and over, come to a conclusion.

reply from: Tam

No. Courts have over and over refused to investigate and have upheld one conclusion reached by "Judge" Greer.

reply from: Christian4life

I have no idea how people can continue to think that Michael Schiavo was a decent, loving husband with Teresa's best interests in mind.  He spent ALL her money that was supposed to go to her treatments on lawyers to have her killed, and himself, while she sat there and had her hospice bill payed for by OUR TAX MONEY.

He deliberately put her in that hospice without her parent's consent, because one of they guy's in charge there was none other than a PRO-EUTHENASIA ADVOCATE.  He had it plotted all along what he was going to do. 

Now, to make matters even worse, he is still trying to control her even after her death.  He has announced that he will have her funeral at an "UNDISCLOSED LOCATION" and HE ISN'T EVEN GOING TO ALLOW HER OWN PARENTS TO GO!!!  Not only that, but he wants to CREMATE her body,  A HUGE NO NO FOR A CATHOLIC WOMAN!  AND HE WON'T TELL ANYONE WHERE HE'S GOING TO KEEP HER ASHES, SO THEY CAN'T EVEN COME AND PAY THEIR RESPECTS!

Gee, what a prince!

reply from: Tam

Wow. This guy has really taken "adding insult to injury" to new heights.

reply from: sarah

When you said, he had it plotted all along what he was going to do, you may not know how spot on that is. As a Christian you might be interested to know there are connections with Greer/Felos to scientology. And if you know anything about scientology you know that they hold strong beliefs about the disabled and what should be done with them....hint: what just happened to Terri.

They have a scale they use to rate the disabled...and you better be on the high end or eternity here you come.

I truly dislike getting into "sub plots" as it were, but this one I found intriguing.

reply from: bkester

So you are actually smarter than the US judicial system and the specialists appointed by it?

Interestingly, you don't react to the other points, to the humane side of euthanasia.

And oh, Tam, i reply to an earlier post of you (some time ago): fetus does not mean unborn child. it simply means child, fruit, offspring; or delivery. Obviously, the word is not used in its original meaning, since we normally use fetus when referring to the embryo. But that's another discussion.

reply from: bkester

The previous post was a reply to one by Tam, but apparently the "quote" function didn't work properly.

reply from: Tam

Ok, bkester, I guess I'll deign to reply to this.

In answer to your question about whether I'm smarter than the US judicial system and the specialists appointed by it--I am so certain of this that I'd almost place money on it. I may not be as knowledgeable as a specialist in the area of his or her specialty, but yeah, if you're trying to ask if I really think I'm smarter than they are: yes, in fact, I'm sure of it. But not only is that irrelevant here (even someone of average or below-average intelligence can see how twisted the Schindler-Schiavo case is), that's not what you really want to know, is it? What is your point?

And you are right--fetus does not mean "unborn child," it does simply mean "child" or "offspring." In American usage, it applies to unborn children, but obviously "fetus"--like "child"--can apply to one's offspring from the moment of conception until the moment of death. Each one of us is someone else's child, so each of us is, has always been, and always will be a fetus. So perhaps I'm being too vague: I believe it is wrong to kill a fetus at any stage of development, from conception until natural death. That sums up anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, and anti-murder right there! Thanks for making that point. It really illustrates how ridiculous it is when people say "a fetus is not a baby!"

reply from: Dmourning

Tam, the Schindlers have over and over and over had their day in (multiple) courts. They even had the United States House of Representatives and President go out of their way to draft a special law just for them to protect their rights.

If anyone in this whole ordeal has had their day in court and rights more than amply looked after, it is the Schindlers.

I have mixed feelings about this.

Michael is Terri's guardian and has the legal right to make these sort of decisions (however inhumane they may be). He has the interests of Terri resting in peace in mind. I'm sure if the location were public, the Randall Terry led circus of absurdity would surely find its way there and defile this poor woman's final resting place.

Terri's parents and those speaking and acting on their behalf have done a wonderful job of twisting this situation around and deliberately painting Michael as some demonic murderer. You people buying it is proof of it. Michael and his family receiving death threats is proof of it. Why on Earth would he even want to consider allowing them the privelege of visitation after what they have done?

On the other hand, I can't help but feel like it's time to let bygones be bygones. Terri is dead, let the parents grieve.

The bottom line is that he has the legal right (as Terri's guardian) to make the decisions about burial/cremation/final resting place.

reply from: Tam

Tam, the Schindlers have over and over and over had their day in (multiple) courts. They even had the United States House of Representatives and President go out of their way to draft a special law just for them to protect their rights.

If anyone in this whole ordeal has had their day in court and rights more than amply looked after, it is the Schindlers.

I realize that this is a popular belief but I do not share it. It is too much to go into all the reasons. I think the truth will come out on its own. And then maybe I will find that you were right all along. And maybe you will find that I was. We'll have to wait and see. If you think the truth is already out, you won't be waiting. But I will be.

reply from: Dmourning

This I can agree with.

I am anxiously awaiting the public release of her autopsy results. It could go a long way to answer some questions.

reply from: Navynate

Face it D, no matter what the autopsy says, you've been supporting a scum bag and jerk in Micheal Schivo. Any normal person would question why they support someone who is as much a scum bag as he's been. Normal people don't support someone no matter what they do. If someone does some pretty horrible things then they quit supporting them if they are true.

reply from: Dmourning

Aside from the garbage the Swindlers have spewed about him, you have no basis to even claim he is a scumbag. Try thinking for yourself for a change.

When the autopsy shows no foul play (as it will since the medical examiner wouldn't sign off on allowing the body to be cremated if there was any suspicion at this point), I hope Michael sues the pants off of the entire Swindler family for slander.

By the way, I'm sure you've heard that the Swindlers are selling the names and email adresses of those who donated to their cause through their website to a third party marketing company, right? Who is all about the dollar signs now???

reply from: Tam

Look at this precious quote from terrisfight.org:

They have no room for any more flowers. They are overwhelmed. I think that's really touching.

reply from: Navynate

D

Any guy who's still married and runs off with another lady and has 2 kids with her when his wife is still alive is a total a complete scum bag, (not an incomplete scumbag, but a complete one). He's also done alot of other things to prove his worthiness as a total and complete scum bag. Getting a million bucks for therapy and then cutting it off once the money was in his bank account. 

Calling Terri's family the Swindlers is funny, but not at all true.   

I look at the facts of the whole case and anyone should decide that not only is he a total scum bag, but also wrong in killing her by starvation. 

   

reply from: Tam

I wish I could agree. D, did you make that up? If so, ok, points for creativity. But that's all I can give you. After what they've been through, I don't see the humor in it. Sorry, D. You know I <3 ya, but that's just too callous for me to find it funny.

reply from: sarah

You know, sometimes it's the little things that really give character away.

The fact that he had her cats killed, in light of the fact her parents would have kept them.

And the fact that he wouldn't allow her teeth to be cleaned speaks volumes.

Curtains not allowed to be drawn, not allowed outside, no flowers, and he kept her parents off the visitors list for an 8 month stretch to name a few.

How on earth anyone in their right mind could stick up for this man (I use the term extremey lightly) is so far beyond me, I'll never be able to reconcile the two.

reply from: sarah

One of the guys in charge there was none other than George Felos...he was chairman of the board of the hospice Terri was in.

That's the ONLY way Schiavo could get her in any hospice. She has to be the longest living hospice patient on record, since two doctors must agree you have less than 6 months to live to gain admittance.

Oh yes, they most certainly did conspire to kill this woman. Such a pity and such a black stain on America.

reply from: Della22

Aside from the garbage the Swindlers have spewed about him, you have no basis to even claim he is a scumbag. Try thinking for yourself for a change. When the autopsy shows no foul play (as it will since the medical examiner wouldn't sign off on allowing the body to be cremated if there was any suspicion at this point), I hope Michael sues the pants off of the entire Swindler family for slander. By the way, I'm sure you've heard that the Swindlers are selling the names and email adresses of those who donated to their cause through their website to a third party marketing company, right? Who is all about the dollar signs now???

D, let's not forget that you're talking about her FAMILY! I think more often than not parents will think more of their children than spouses. I lvoe my husband, but I will not let him have power of attourney over me. I am not so sure he would have MY best interest in mind. Especially if he was some scum bag deep down and decided he needed to get rid of me because he could no longer "boink" me and wanted someone who was not in my physical condition. Lots of people who REALLY love their spouses keep them alive as long as possible and build their lives around their spouse's disabiity. Look at Christopher Reeve's wife. If you no longer love someone you can always divorce them. But you're going to be a little more hesitant if there's a large sum of money you're going to have to give up due to the divorce. And someone who had any religious beliefs could NEVER starve their wife or husband to death. So why bash the people who loved Terri the most and praise the one man who wished her dead?

reply from: Tam

In light of the recent conversation about Terri, I thought I'd include this:

reply from: Alexandra

Another aspect to this--In order to be awarded that $1 million, Schiavo had to PROVE that Terri could be rehabilitated. Otherwise he wouldn't have gotten a single red cent.

Once he had the money, he probably realized that should Terri be rehabilitated, she could finger him and he could be sent up for attempted murder.

He had to get rid of the evidence. And he did. But you know what? He'll have to face a much higher Judge later on! He will not get away with it. Even if he does in this life, he won't in the next life. I can guarantee that.

reply from: Tam

I always see people cite how he turned down offers of money to allow Terri to live. Of course he did! Accepting one would have been admitting he'd been lying about her wishes all along. Then he would have been in deep trouble for that lawsuit.

reply from: galen

once again... no matter what your wishes... write them down, this need never happen to any family again.

Personal thoughts aside... Terri was not brain dead, she was vegitative, ie minimally cognitive to no cognitive function at all...Should she have been allowed to go with her parents, perhaps. but please remember that they bore none of the cost of caring for her and the insurance money was used for her care. When she was on Fl medicaid, her parents still did not have to pay for her medical care, nor to my knowledge did they ever offer to. the taxpayers in Florida however did foot a large portion of this bill after her regular insurance coverage ran out. it makes me take the focus soley off her husband and wonder wether her parents wanted to have thier cake and to eat it too. when you offer to take on a burden of care for your child ( adult disabled) does this not mean that you should also foot part of the bill for such care. To my knowledge when the money for rehab etc ran out... and that would have been done quickly if the funds had not been used for her care soley, then Medicaid in Florida would not have picked up the tab for those services due to the condition of her brain. So we again have a brain damaged woman who was the responsibility of her husband , who had no means of support from her parents. these same parents wanted to have her husband pay for her to be treated the way the parents wanted, but not help out monetarily for that support. All the while the churches and legal aid are funding the parents legal case while the husband has to pay his own costs?? Come on . The fact is that i would have had more sympathy for her parents in this case if they had been more willing to share the burden of her care. it seems to me that though they have suspicious thoughts about T's husband , they are not acting in any way that other grieving parents have acted. many grief stricken people will point the finger at anyone but God, in order to assuage thier grief. the fact is that there has been NO proof of abuse before her collapse and none after up to the time her feeding tube was removed. how you feel about the manner of her death is for personal opinion and is not medical fact. more than likely she did experience discomfort, and that was why she was given morphine. Was she fully aware ? No even the IME stated this.
If T wanted to end her life, should she be found in this state, wouldn't it have been as much of a crime to keep her alive for so long as it was to let her dehydrate to death? the fact is we can never know what was said, nor can her parents. it was between her and her husband, and now is between her and God.

Mary

reply from: Alexandra

It may be that she was fully aware, but because of brain damage unable to communicate that. It's like your mind is functioning fully, and you can think--but you can't get your muscles to move, or if you can you can't do a very good job of it. She may have been fine mentally, but physically was another story altogether.

reply from: Tam

I've been thinking about WHY I don't consider a feeding tube "artificial life support". It is because it is not a machine. The whole implication of "artificial life support" is that someone is being kept alive by a machine. A feeding tube is more akin to a hearing aid or a prosthetic limb, than it is to a ventilator or heart machine. If you take someone off life support, they die immediately. No breathing, they die. No heartbeat, they die. If you stop feeding someone who can't eat by herself, that's not the same thing at ALL. I do believe anyone has the right to refuse food, and if there had been hard evidence that Terri would rather starve to death than accept food through a tube, I'd have supported her decision to starve HERSELF to death. But that is not the case--there was no hard evidence, only the word of a man whose participation in the whole thing was highly suspect. Once the autopsy ruled out bulimia as the cause of her collapse, I'd like to know what they think caused it...

reply from: bradensmommy

When I did my searches last year about her and what caused her to be the way she was I found that it was by her husband. He would abuse her mentally and physically especially if she gained her weight back. If anyone knew about her past, she was really overweight. If you do a search of her it'll give you articles from friends and family members and how her waste of space husband treated her like crap because she had a low self-esteem.

reply from: Tam

But even when she was supposedly sooo overweight, she really wasn't that fat. I've seen pictures and she looks like an average American woman. Yeah, maybe she could have been in better shape, but so could most of us, and that she was treated badly because of this weight is so offensive to all women.

BTW, great blog!

reply from: bradensmommy

But you know how some guys are, if you are over 120 lbs you are fat. Its a shame how some guys think and feel about women which is why bulemia and anerexia is so common among young girls. I know I'm not skinny but my hubby loves me anyway! Thanks for reading my blog!

reply from: tabithamarcotte

I have an incredible book this detective wrote, and it's about how Terri's coma could have very well been induced by Michael. It's called The Silent Witness, I do't remember the author's name, though.

reply from: galen

i have never seen any reliable evidence to say she was abused. BTW did you know that her BCP could have caused her heart to have problems. it also could have been any 1 of 100 diffrent things, none of wich would have been in any way related to her husband.

remember there is a reason that heresay is not allowed in court. i personally would not like it if people could gossip about me in the media and have charges that i did something horrible spread throughout the world as if they were truth... how about you? Just because someone says they know something or heard something... that does not make it a hard fact. When you play with someone's life and reputation, it is better to err on the side of fact, that way you don't have to walk areound with feet hanging out of your mouth.

Mary

reply from: Tam

You know what a feeding tube is? A prosthetic mouth! Does that make sense to everyone? It's no different from any other prosthetic. And in Terri's case, because her family was forbidden to try to feed her by mouth (what, she might choke to death, perhaps? wouldn't that be less inhumane than starvation? just wondering...), it was necessary to her survival...but that is not the same as being hooked up to a machine.

They kept referring to the removal of this feeding tube as "unhooking Terri" as though she were hooked to a machine. She wasn't! I know how these things work. At mealtimes, you have to eat a liquid diet (think Enfamil) and it gets dumped down a tube into the stomach.

In fact, technically speaking, the TUBE is not even part of the apparatus that is the prosthetic--it is called a PEG, it is a little nozzle thing that goes from the inside of your tummy to the outside of your tummy, so you can put food directly in. The TUBE part isn't even necessary--it just makes it more convenient, so you don't have to pour food into the PEG through a little funnel or anything! You pour it into a plastic bag that gets attached to a tube, the other end of which is attached to the PEG. It is only for convenience. It is really the PEG that is the prosthetic. You could literally puree scrambled eggs and shove them through the PEG if you wanted to, but using a bag and tube makes it more convenient because you can set it up to flow in slowly over about 20 minutes or so, which frees up the nurse or whomever, so s/he doesn't have to stand there pouring the food into the person's stomach.

In other words, there is NO SENSE in which Terri was "hooked up" to anything, and the only "artificial" thing was that she had what amounts to a prosthetic mouth.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics